Is Atheism a Belief System? (split from the Political Views thread)

[AmazonQueen]

This is the problem with option b in the hypothetical. People always seem to want to make "proof" equitable.


And insist that any "good" god should certainly be equitable. Why? Where does the idea that god would have to be working from a plan that meets your petty value judgements come from?

Akka, you immediately reduced real life experience by countering with "someone says." Things that happen to you aren't registered in your file of information as being equal to things you hear about. The hypothetical wasn't in the realm of "heard about." It was in the realm of "happened." Option b was included specifically to differentiate that. The question isn't about how you would respond to hearing about it, the question is about how you would respond to it happening. Those are far from the same thing.

That's why I pester the proselytizers for the non-god, as well as the proselytizers for various interpretations of god. If god wants someone, god can come and get them. If they think that telling other people about the experience is going to "bring them to god" they are most likely wrong. Just like when someone says "well, such never happened to me so it can't have happened to you either" in reply they are most likely wrong.

The trouble is that if I don't know that hes working from a plan that meets my petty value judgements then I don't know if the plan is good or bad. Why should I assume the plan is good when it seems arbitrary and vindictive?

 

[Kyriakos]

Experiments can be repeatable despite possible change; as long as they do not factor it. The cosmos may have no stable law but if from the human pov it has then it wont be picked up from experiments.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why would this hypothetical frighten anyone besides the fear of dying?

I'm curious, where do you think 'fright' came into play? I certainly didn't intend to introduce fright into the hypothetical, but it's the first thing you asked about in a very good post.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The trouble is that if I don't know that hes working from a plan that meets my petty value judgements then I don't know if the plan is good or bad. Why should I assume the plan is good when it seems arbitrary and vindictive?

Why do you assume that your opinion of the plan matters at all?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Why do you assume that your opinion of the plan matters at all?

Maybe it doesn't but that still does nothing to show that there is a plan. In the unlikely event of something like your thought experiment happening it doesn't prove the existence of god although it might suggest that my understanding of the universe was flawed. More probable though is that I would be delusional.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Maybe it doesn't but that still does nothing to show that there is a plan. In the unlikely event of something like your thought experiment happening it doesn't prove the existence of god although it might suggest that my understanding of the universe was flawed. More probable though is that I would be delusional.

I'm going to guess that coming out of it with the conclusion "I am delusional" fits under option c pretty handily.

In regards to this plan business, another hypothetical. Let's say...

Our very own @El_Machinae stands on the very brink of identifying a cure for Alzheimer's and is entering a critical final stage that will in fact provide the last bits and pieces of information that he needs. He has a good plan to reach a good outcome, it certainly seems.

Does it matter if the lab rats think it is a good plan?

Does it matter if they even recognize that he has a plan?

 

[schlaufuchs]

Not at all. I understand the basics of science. That wasn't the point.

Let's ask a hypothetical...

If you were driving, lost control of your car, and went off a cliff...and your car returned to the road and a guy walked up to your window and said "That was, as we say in the trade, your personal 'come to Jesus' moment. Congratulations." Would you:

a) Drive back off the cliff to see if it was a repeatable experiment.
b) Log immediately into CFC and try to convince us that it really really happened.
c) Accept that your world view needed a little work, but figure it would be best not to try to explain why to anyone else.

I don't really see how you are connecting this thought to a broader question of belief or justified belief. Like, my world view wouldn't fundamentally change given this hypothetical. I already acknowledge that the factors that produce an event are incredibly complex and that contingency is such that a) small changes in an event's factors can lead to at times wildly different outcomes and b) often those factors can be extremely difficult, perhaps even practically-speaking impossible to parse and weight correctly. But none of that worldview necessitates the presence of a being directing or arranging those contingent factors. I have had things like this happen to me in real life: near misses in life-threatening events, and I've had people tell me that near-miss is attributable to a Divine presence. It was a sobering moment, to be sure, but that near-death experience didn't lead me to conclude that that event was a) necessary for the development of my personal credo (i.e. a true "Come to Jesus" moment), nor did it cause me to alter the conceptualization of my personal narrative. Sure something could have gone differently, but it didn't. I survived. I was lucky.

If God is omniscient then they already know precisely what it would take to make me believe in their existence, and if they are omnipotent then they have the ability to intercede directly in human events to make that switch in belief occur. That they haven't demonstrates that either a) they don't exist, b) my belief is immaterial to them, or c) they are working in some kind of subtle, imperceptible way to eventually effect that change, in which case my best course of action is to do nothing and let come what may.

 

[Akka]

Akka, you immediately reduced real life experience by countering with "someone says." Things that happen to you aren't registered in your file of information as being equal to things you hear about. The hypothetical wasn't in the realm of "heard about." It was in the realm of "happened." Option b was included specifically to differentiate that. The question isn't about how you would respond to hearing about it, the question is about how you would respond to it happening. Those are far from the same thing.

You seem to have missed the whole point - again. Considering I physically can't spell it out more clearly than I did, I guess you just actively don't want to hear it and seem to shut down your thinking process when you hear something that displeases you.
Not really surprising (your obsession with the "proselytizers of the non-God" is already kinda of a big hint of this), but a bit sad.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't really see how you are connecting this thought to a broader question of belief or justified belief. Like, my world view wouldn't fundamentally change given this hypothetical. I already acknowledge that the factors that produce an event are incredibly complex and that contingency is such that a) small changes in an event's factors can lead to at times wildly different outcomes and b) often those factors can be extremely difficult, perhaps even practically-speaking impossible to parse and weight correctly. But none of that worldview necessitates the presence of a being directing or arranging those contingent factors. I have had things like this happen to me in real life: near misses in life-threatening events, and I've had people tell me that near-miss is attributable to a Divine presence. It was a sobering moment, to be sure, but that near-death experience didn't lead me to conclude that that event was a) necessary for the development of my personal credo (i.e. a true "Come to Jesus" moment), nor did it cause me to alter the conceptualization of my personal narrative. Sure something could have gone differently, but it didn't. I survived. I was lucky.

If God is omniscient then they already know precisely what it would take to make me believe in their existence, and if they are omnipotent then they have the ability to intercede directly in human events to make that switch in belief occur. That they haven't demonstrates that either a) they don't exist, b) my belief is immaterial to them, or c) they are working in some kind of subtle, imperceptible way to eventually effect that change, in which case my best course of action is to do nothing and let come what may.

I see that I was not sufficiently descriptive about the guy walking up to the car window. He wasn't intended to be mistaken for "some rando that happened to be passing along the road at that moment." It was meant to be clear that his "trade" was in fact making such "come to Jesus moments" happen. Sort of the 'point man' for what you talk about in the second paragraph.

What I was trying to illustrate is that just because your option b may apply to you and right now does not mean it applies to everyone or even to you forever. This relates to the "fairness doctrine" that @AmazonQueen seems to be demanding. It seems "not fair" to take some guy's car out of the air and set it back on the road, then walk up to the window as tangible proof of the existence of god to that one individual. The insistence that god "should" flip everyone's cars at the same time "just to be fair" is a pretty common response.

 

[El_Machinae]

Does it matter if the lab rats think it is a good plan?

Does it matter if they even recognize that he has a plan?

Pragmatically? Or in an absolute sense?
Anyone who insists that I am morally perfect, and not merely constrained by the laws of reality, is making a moral error

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You seem to have missed the whole point - again. Considering I physically can't spell it out more clearly than I did, I guess you just actively don't want to hear it and seem to shut down your thinking process when you hear something that displeases you.
Not really surprising (your obsession with the "proselytizers of the non-God" is already kinda of a big hint of this), but a bit sad.

Other than projecting your justifications for your snottiness onto me, what did this post have to do with anything?

What point did I miss? You didn't respond to the hypothetical and countered with an "If I heard..." hypothetical. I'm not upset by that, I just pointed out that you did it.

 

[brennan]

take some guy's car out of the air and set it back on the road, then walk up to the window as tangible proof of the existence of god

Or Magneto.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Pragmatically? Or in an absolute sense?
Anyone who insists that I am morally perfect, and not merely constrained by the laws of reality, is making a moral error

I wasn't suggesting anything about your morality, you were just the most likely person I could think of to be on the brink of a cure for anything.

As to the question of pragmatism or in an absolute sense, either way. I wasn't asking from the perspective of "the plan is to torture the lab rats." I was asking based on the assumption that the lab rats have no particular insights to offer. No one is going to want to know whether you consulted with the rats regarding methodology.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Or Magneto.

I'm figuring Magneto wouldn't have described it as a "come to Jesus moment," but he is notoriously unpredictable.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I'm figuring Magneto wouldn't have described it as a "come to Jesus moment," but he is notoriously unpredictable.

You Homo-Sapiens and your Gods......

 

[El_Machinae]

No one is going to want to know whether you consulted with the rats regarding methodology.

Well, the rats won't want to know. But they'll certainly care about the consequences if I have or haven't.
(and I know it breaks your analogy, but we actually do have to factor into our methodology feedback that the community has gotten back from rats)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, the rats won't want to know. But they'll certainly care about the consequences if I have or haven't.
(and I know it breaks your analogy, but we actually do have to factor into our methodology feedback that the community has gotten back from rats)

I get that the rats care about the consequences as related to them. The point was that the entire purpose of the experiment is completely over their heads. It is as much beyond their reasoning as it is beyond their moral judgement.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I get that the rats care about the consequences as related to them. The point was that the entire purpose of the experiment is completely over their heads. It is as much beyond their reasoning as it is beyond their moral judgement.

There might be a god who exists outside the rules of reality as we know them with a plan that doesn't make sense to us isn't actually an argument for belief. Its an argument that we should stop using our intelligence, stop using logic and evidence because there might be something we don't know yet. If you applied this to any area of thought or life except religion you'd be very foolish but somehow its good to do with religion?

 

[Akka]

Other than projecting your justifications for your snottiness onto me, what did this post have to do with anything?

Considering the way you've acted in this thread, I'm pretty sure I'm not the one projecting on others an angry teen's behaviour

What point did I miss? You didn't respond to the hypothetical and countered with an "If I heard..." hypothetical. I'm not upset by that, I just pointed out that you did it.

I pointed that the hypothetical is pointless because it's ridiculously exagerated and aimed at ridiculing the skeptic PoV - it's just the equivalent of a strawman combined with a loaded question.

Basically it's "hey you fanatics of the anti-God religion, if God punched you in the face, would you continue to pretend he doesn't exist and make a fool of yourself, or would you act wisely and ponder your beliefs ?".
Which might succeed in your mind at "ohohoh, I just showed them their contradictions", but in my eyes it's just showing that you are missing each and every point about atheism that were made in this thread, and displaying by your behaviour the very reason why atheists are skeptical about claims of personal events that "prove" the existence of God.

 

[formerdc81]

Stop trying to "prove" this to each other. The evidence from sense data does not logically imply either theism or atheism because a philosophical axiomatic assumption is needed to make sense of the data. Just let each man and woman decide for themselves. The world most likely is not a first-order logic where every statement can eventually be proven true or false from first principles and a set of finite first principles can then encompass all knowledge. Thus, any form of reductionist thinking (be it religious or rational) is an incomplete and/or incorrect picture of reality.